Saturday, May 12, 2007
Int J Gynecol Cancer (Article Abstract)
Blackwell Synergy - Int J Gynecol Cancer, Volume 17 Issue 3 Page 557 - May/June 2007 (Article Abstract): "International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Professionals’ and patients’ views of routine follow-up: a questionnaire survey
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 17 (3), 557–560.
doi:10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00839.x
* F.M. KEW**Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, EnglandFiona M. Kew, MB, ChB, MRCOG, Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Sheriff Hill, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear NE9 6SX, England. Email: fiona.kew@ghnt.nhs.uk,
* K. GALAAL**Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, England,
* H. MANDERVILLE**Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, England &
* L. VERLEYE**Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, England
*Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, England
Abstract
Traditionally, women who have been treated for a gynecological cancer have undergone long-term follow-up by hospital doctors. Recently, there has been interest in alternative models of follow-up, including nurse-based review. The project compares patients’ and professionals’ views of follow-up. A questionnaire was completed by 96 women attending routine follow-up clinics and by 32 professionals involved in delivering follow-up. A large majority of women (82/96, 92%) and professionals (25/34, 73%) thought that follow-up should be provided by a hospital doctor. However, professionals were more likely to think that specialist nurses and general practitioners should be involved in the provision of follow-up (P < 0.01). Professionals thought that the most important part of the follow-up visit was the consultation, whereas women thought it was the examination (P < 0.001). Women thought that detection of recurrence was the most important reason for continuing surveillance, whereas professionals regarded addressing patients’ concerns as the primary reason for follow-up (P < 0.001). We conclude that the views of women undergoing follow-up after gynecological cancer differ significantly from the professionals providing follow-up care. These views must be considered when developing alternative follow-up strategies.
2007 UK abstract: The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: finding from a modified nominal group study
Entrez PubMed
Br J Cancer. 2007 Mar 26;96(6):875-81. Epub 2007 Mar 6.Click here to read Links
The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study.
* Corner J,
* Wright D,
* Hopkinson J,
* Gunaratnam Y,
* McDonald JW,
* Foster C.
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
Members of the public are increasingly consulted over health care and research priorities. Patient involvement in determining cancer research priorities, however, has remained underdeveloped. This paper presents the findings of the first consultation to be conducted with UK cancer patients concerning research priorities. The study adopted a participatory approach using a collaborative model that sought joint ownership of the study with people affected by cancer. An exploratory, qualitative approach was used. Consultation groups were the main method, combining focus group and nominal group techniques. Seventeen groups were held with a total of 105 patients broadly representative of the UK cancer population. Fifteen areas for research were identified. Top priority areas included the impact cancer has on life, how to live with cancer and related support issues; risk factors and causes of cancer; early detection and prevention. Although biological and treatment related aspects of science were identified as important, patients rated the management of practical, social and emotional issues as a higher priority. There is a mismatch between the research priorities identified by participants and the current UK research portfolio. Current research activity should be broadened to reflect the priorities of people affected by the disease.
PMID: 17342090 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Posts
